I thought that Romney won this debate hands down. I don't even think that it was close.

The moderator was terrible, but I kind of liked that the candidates were able too finish thoughts and make additional comments. It really took the left wing media slant out of the process entirely. I'm betting that that won't happen again.....especially with Candy.....

I know that this is far from over, and it might actually be to late for Romney, but last night, he looked and sounded more Presidential than Obama. Obama looked defeated and lost most of the time. I think that his handlers have done him a dis-service over the years, by protecting him.

I look forward to next Thursday. I think that Ryan is going to "school" Biden.

I waited to see if I was just wearing Romney goggles and from what I've read and seen, Obama's "own" media agrees......he lost big time.
Only time will tell if it makes a difference at the polls
what do yall think

Cliff, I agree with everything you said. I was surprised that Obama let certain things occur. Like Romney getting the last word on several occasions. I think in the next debate a couple of things will change. Romney will make eye contact with the American people, instead of at the moderator and Obama and Obama will not look down and frown or actually look pissed.

I also think the Dems wish the VP debate was over. Biden is a seasoned politician, but I think Ryan is just too intelligent and quick thinker for Biden to handle.

Finally, I do not think it is too late. The election is just too close. However, many of the Obama supporters will not change regardless of how much Romney connects. In contrast, I also believe the only votes that will exchange, due to the debates, will be Obama to Romney.

Not too late. You have to realize the polling is basing potential voters and weighting them with the turn out from last election. That election had a abnormal amount of youth and minority voting compared to all the elections before it. If you weigh the polls compared to historic turnout, they are actually polling pretty even. I don't think Obama can afford another debate slaughter like that again.

Don't believe the polls. The liberals running most of the polls are over sampling Dems by about 7-8% in order to make Republicans and Independents think the election is over. In general, take 5% off Obama and add 5% to Romney to see more of a true #. Remember, Carter was "leading" Reagan by 9% in Oct and the election wasn't close. I am sure Obama's internal polls are showing how bad this election may unfold.

Without a dramatic event Romney wins this election pretty easily. The polls from the battleground states are really bogus! The liberals really want to dampen the pro-America voters in those states because they know Obama's turnout will be NO WHERE near what it was in 2008.

Without a dramatic event Romney wins this election pretty easily. The polls from the battleground states are really bogus! The liberals really want to dampen the pro-America voters in those states because they know Obama's turnout will be NO WHERE near what it was in 2008.

This is definitely top ten most ignorant statements ever on WW. Not one sane person is making this same sort of baseless claim. Besides to imply that Republican voters could be swayed from voting because of what is on TV, radio, or internet is basically an insult to the intelligence of your own party. I find it amusing that Republican pundits continue to call its party voters too stupid to do their own research. I would be insulted if I was a republican.

This is definitely top ten most ignorant statements ever on WW. Not one sane person is making this same sort of baseless claim. Besides to imply that Republican voters could be swayed from voting because of what is on TV, radio, or internet is basically an insult to the intelligence of your own party. I find it amusing that Republican pundits continue to call its party voters too stupid to do their own research. I would be insulted if I was a republican.

That is well recognized phenomenon with Democrat votes. Especially, young voters with any inclination their Democrat Candidate may lose. They just stay home. You donít see it with Conservatives since many of us actually make good money and want to avoid paying more in taxes.
People that pay no taxes and only skin in the game is the size of the handout arenít nearly as motivated.

However, that doesnít stop the liberal leaning pollster from putting out bogus polls even through it does almost nothing to sway Conservatives. Dick Morris and many other pundits look inside the polling. It is easy to identify when there is an agenda with a poll.

That is well recognized phenomenon with Democrat votes. Especially, young voters with any inclination their Democrat Candidate may lose. They just stay home. You donít see it with Conservatives since many of us actually make good money and want to avoid paying more in taxes.
People that pay no taxes and only skin in the game is the size of the handout arenít nearly as motivated.

However, that doesnít stop the liberal leaning pollster from putting out bogus polls even through it does almost nothing to sway Conservatives. Dick Morris and many other pundits look inside the polling. It is easy to identify when there is an agenda with a poll.

Another senseless post from Rob. There are plenty of "conservatives" that pay no taxes and receive plenty of handouts. I see it all of the time here in TN. That is the reason for Mitt's apology over the 47% comment. There are also plenty of Democrats that make good money and don't receive any handouts. And you citing Dick Morris just shows you have your head inserted into your rectum.

Young voters are exponentially more likely to not watch the national news and get their information from online or less "mainstream" news sources. So again, just more opinionated BS from your keyboard.

Without a doubt Romney got the upper hand in the debate. The realities of the economy make Obama an easy target. It still remains that Romney claims to be able to fix the economy with hand waving and his basic principles indicate that any cuts he makes will be on the backs of the average person.

Obama inherited a huge increase in the deficit. The time for govt to spend is when the economy is weak. The time for govt to pay down the debt is when the economy is strong. Basically Romney said he was going to put out principles and Congress would give him the solutions. While that is a valid approach, his principles of low taxes on high earners and maintaining defense at current or higher levels makes this a fairy tale. Obama is absolutely right on when he claims that giving old people vouchers for health insurance will put them at the mercy of the corp world. Medicare pays extremely low rates of reimbursement for medical care. If we all could pay those rates, then there would be no need to insurance except at the catastrophic level.

I don't think that he wants the job as much as he wants the status and the perks. Obama wants to be an elitist. He wants to be a member of the group that he is always complaining about. He wants to sip his home brew, play golf, and have people tell him that he is amazing.

I don't think that he wants the job as much as he wants the status and the perks. Obama wants to be an elitist. He wants to be a member of the group that he is always complaining about. He wants to sip his home brew, play golf, and have people tell him that he is amazing.

that, of course, is just my opinion....

And why do you think Romney "wants the job"?

I thought Romney won the debate. Yet I didn't hear any substance in Romney's plan or an explanation how he is going to institute these huge tax cuts and still not add to the deficit. And then we hear that he has a plan for pre-existing conditions, something the insurance companies are screaming against, but no elaboration. I can't believe Obama didn't bring up the 47% comment. Especially since Romney initially said he stood by his comments, yet the night after the debate, on the Sean Hannity show, he said he regretted saying it. So now Obama has missed the boat on that big herring which lead to Obama's lead in the polls....

Which is a perfect segue in to my next point, something along the lines SomeoneElse brought up earlier. So now the polls are biased because they aren't going Romney's way? Yet a few weeks ago, when some polls had Romney in the lead, oh those were good as gold. Never heard one word about "biased polls" until Obama got the lead.

I thought Romney won the debate. Yet I didn't hear any substance in Romney's plan or an explanation how he is going to institute these huge tax cuts and still not add to the deficit. And then we hear that he has a plan for pre-existing conditions, something the insurance companies are screaming against, but no elaboration. I can't believe Obama didn't bring up the 47% comment. Especially since Romney initially said he stood by his comments, yet the night after the debate, on the Sean Hannity show, he said he regretted saying it. So now Obama has missed the boat on that big herring which lead to Obama's lead in the polls....

Which is a perfect segue in to my next point, something along the lines SomeoneElse brought up earlier. So now the polls are biased because they aren't going Romney's way? Yet a few weeks ago, when some polls had Romney in the lead, oh those were good as gold. Never heard one word about "biased polls" until Obama got the lead.

Obama has had 4 years to show us something.Results are in.Fuel costs more now than when he took office.Unemployment is higher now than when he took office. National debt is considerable higher than when he took office. None of his Hope and Change promises were kept.Bottom line Obama is full of chit.

"You're entitled to your own plane and your own house, but not your own facts"
I seriously bust out laughing at that point.

Josh, You're right, he does expect the bulk of the taxes to be paid by the average person. But his plan is to have more of the average people actually working and paying into the system instead of sitting on unemployment. For guys like us who are working already, I'm not worried at all about it. The more people that are working, and the more they make, the more they pay in. It's not that their taxes go up, just having to pay taxes on more income.

I couldn't either, but maybe it was because of the 2007 video emerged the other day of the "less refined" and more racially energized Obama. Not to mention the results of all of his failed promises. And now the Libya debacle.

I couldn't either, but maybe it was because of the 2007 video emerged the other day of the "less refined" and more racially energized Obama. Not to mention the results of all of his failed promises. And now the Libya debacle.

What politician doesn't make promises that don't come to fruition once they get in office? Because if you are saying that you expect Romney to live up to everything he promises if elected, you obviously fail to see how this country works. Our government has checks and balances to ensure you don't have a emperor or monarch-style president. The Dems are more than likely going to keep control of the Senate, this is going to be a huge roadblock for all of Romney's pipe dreams if elected.

^How does the President have anything to do with the price of oil? Our economy was crashing, that is why the price went so low right before he took office. And in case you are suffering from Alzheimer's, gas was averaging close to 4.00 a gallon in the summer of 2008. And I guess two unfunded wars get credited to Obama.

"I think that Romney wants to fix the country. He could chill now and live the lifestyle of the rich and famous."

That's absurd. If that is even remotely true, then how come after his failed bid in 2008, why not try to do something that may actually "fix the country"? His lifelong dream is obviously to be president and the accolades that goes along with it.

"Don't believe the polls. Without a dramatic event Romney wins this election pretty easily. The polls from the battleground states are really bogus!"
someones listening too much to Rush
""Trickle-down government" PRICELESS!!!
yah, George H W Bush used that line in 1992 against Clinton, didn't work then, probably won't work this year either!

Jeremy, the Dems. controlling the senate is not a certainty, and IMHO the election could still go either way fast. With all the blunders that have happened, Romney had to make a respectable showing just to get back in. Jo, I'd never heard of "Trickle-Down Government" but it's good to see that physical conservatives are finally learning how to play the media. I'm just looking forward to the Biden and Ryan debate.

Actually, if Clinton did not go to Perot and beg him to stay in the race, Clinton would not have won. Technically it did work, just more conservatives voted for the two instead of the one.

I don't think anyone said anything about the polls earlier. It is simple facts. They are extrapilating polled potential voters and then adding in what they think the turn out of voters will be. Right now they are using last elections turn out which was historically high. I don't think the fringe base is that fired up and I even know a few republicans that voted for Obama just so they could be part of the historic election of a black man as president. I don't think those extra numbers will be there this time. Historically Republicans seem to always poll lower leading up to the elections.

Romney is correct when he talks about the only ways to get revenue neutral. Cut costs or increase taxes or increase revenue. You already have 10% of the people paying 95% of the taxes. How much more do you think you are going to get? All our retirement is in businesses so you can not go after them too much or we start getting less return thus have to work longer to make the difference. Plus, they are making policies that make them flow out of the country. How do you increase revenue? That happens with more people at work. Government workers ultimately drain the middle class. Can't get enough taxes from people you are paying the salary of to make that work. The way you do it is private business unless you want to be china and have government ran businesses. Small business is usually good at servicing local economies that usually are centered around larger companies that attract money from outside its area. The larger companies usually service corporations which help attract international money.

Just remember, you can not fix the economy until you get money coming into the country not out. That is why Clinton era was doing well. The fake money give away of the tech boom brought tons of money into the country. Obama wants to build a strong middle class through government jobs. That sounds good until you realize that the only people paying any income taxes are 53% of the country and something like (need the real number) top 10% pays 95% of all income taxes. If you want to grow the economy, people are going to have to stop demonizing corporations and try to attract them. They are the only mechanisms that can attract out of country money. Remember, the government does not really manufacture products that get sold over seas.

"trickle-down" government is true brilliance. It pretty much sums up what I HATE about OBAMA.

Yes, Romney destroyed the president in this debate and this should set us up for some great VP/P debates to come in rebound. Biden will try to fix it. Can you imagine an aggressive Biden? This could be fun to watch. Next, Obama will come looking out instead of down with daggers to be thrown. This is going to be fun to watch!

It doesn't take more than some sort of punchline to win over Republicans. Remember in 2004, "Don't be a girly man, vote Republican"? In 2008 it was hockey moms and community organizer. Now we have trickle down government, the same trickle down government the prospective VP has been a part of for over a decade. Brilliance.

It doesn't take more than some sort of punchline to win over Republicans. Remember in 2004, "Don't be a girly man, vote Republican"? In 2008 it was hockey moms and community organizer. Now we have trickle down government, the same trickle down government the prospective VP has been a part of for over a decade. Brilliance.

In 2008, many a dem and repub fell for two words. Hope and Change. Furthermore, regardless of the secrecy surrounding this person's life and the fact they had no experience or real (good) political history you and millions of others fell for much less.

Today, the economy is tanked (yes, your brilliant president and your dems played a major role in it too with Freddie and Fannie first under Bush and now failed stimulus'), and I could go down the list like Romney did (and he will again) and you cannot respond to the facts just like Obama couldn't. All you can do, like the dems and libs are so used to doing is deflect. Just now, you pulled a slogan from 2004. I know you are intelligent and probably more informed than I, but wow. It is those two facts (about you and SOME other dems) that make me scratch my head on the way home and ask "Why?". What am I missing? I don't think I am missing anything except that some are still blinded by Obama's old slogan "Hope and Change", his old "throwback" red, white and blue campaign signs and the desire to live in some socialist idyllic society.

In 2008, many a dem and repub fell for two words. Hope and Change. Furthermore, regardless of the secrecy surrounding this person's life and the fact they had no experience or real (good) political history you and millions of others fell for much less.

Today, the economy is tanked (yes, your brilliant president and your dems played a major role in it too with Freddie and Fannie first under Bush and now failed stimulus'), and I could go down the list like Romney did (and he will again) and you cannot respond to the facts just like Obama couldn't. All you can do, like the dems and libs are so used to doing is deflect. Just now, you pulled a slogan from 2004. I know you are intelligent and probably more informed than I, but wow. It is those two facts (about you and SOME other dems) that make me scratch my head on the way home and ask "Why?". What am I missing? I don't think I am missing anything except that some are still blinded by Obama's old slogan "Hope and Change", his old "throwback" red, white and blue campaign signs and the desire to live in some socialist idyllic society.

No deflect is what you "conservatives" have been doing this whole election cycle. Throughout the primaries, Romney portrayed himself as conservative and he continued this role play throughout the nomination and after the GOP convention. Then disappears and reemerges as moderate Mitt during the debates. But his campaign manager admitted this would happen with the ole "etch-a-sketch" comment. So if this is the kind of candidate you support, enjoy. Personally, the moderate Mitt is better than the conservative Mitt. I also applaud your enthusiasm after one debate, assuming that is all Mitt needed to win.

.LMAO, Jeremy, it is not just the Republican mindset that falls victim to punch line campaigning. This may come as a surprise to you, but Democrats find themselves manipulated by this tactic as well. The public always love good headline.

For me, I didn't want to see who "won" the debate. There were lots of things that obama said about Romney that worried me. I wanted to see the two together and hear how each responded to the facts. I wanted to know which one or both was taking liberties with the truth. i was overwhelmed by the result in favor of Romney.

There were repeated attempts by Obama to state Romney's position and Romney explained them all. But, for me the telling point was when Romney explained in detail his position one point at a time on Dodd-Frank (some kind of banking regs). What was good and were it is failing. Obama responded something about , now you want to repeal the banking regs and leave the banks unregulated. It was a childish emotional answer that shoed us insight into his thought process. and why he can't win a face to face. He is taking Romney's positions and skewing them to reflect badly. That process works in ads but not in the debates.

In a single evening, Riomney undermined the negative ad campaign. Obama wasted millions on those ads. IMHO.

Surprised no one has mentioned the supreme court. I don't see anyone talking about this anywhere actually. Certainly not all that excited about Obama (although the hate is a little ridiculous) but the idea of Romney picking a couple of justices, given the extremist crazies he is beholden to, is pretty scary.

Surprised no one has mentioned the supreme court. I don't see anyone talking about this anywhere actually. Certainly not all that excited about Obama (although the hate is a little ridiculous) but the idea of Romney picking a couple of justices, given the extremist crazies he is beholden to, is pretty scary.

Usually if you have a wife it somewhat implies that she is being taken care of or in relation with unlike the folks in the democrat controlled intercity. Many people knocked up not a single father to be seen. The equivalent of polygamy is legal as long as you knock them up but don't marry them?

If you think that polygamy is only down in Colorado City then you are sadly mistaken. If you think they need government assistance, the Kingstons are worth over $150 Million (Think Romney knows them?) Here's a link to one 16 year old Kingston girl's story.

""Has he not been a congressman for 6 terms? Is he not a member of the congress that currently has an approval rating in the ? "" But what specifically did he or did not support that causes you not to like him?

^First and foremost, is his budget that everyone gushes over, yet does little to nothing to address SS spending and Medicare along with proposing defense-spending increases. This baffles me as Ryan is looked at as some sort of budget guru, yet his plan barely dents the federal deficit. Another thing is without the deductions that most middle class families depend on, they will see a tax increase. Another thing is his repeated votes for the Patriot Act. He also voted for the Wall Street and auto bailouts, now he is part of a platform that demonizes the bailouts.

Our biggest problem that is really going to bite us hard one day is our growing debt and huge deficit spending. One of our biggest expenses that actually can be cut is defense. With that said, one thing that bothers me the most is that Romney vows not to cut defense spending and, if anything, to increase it. We simply can't afford the military we have right now. This stance on military spending baffles me. I'm not sure if he's actually serious or just blowing smoke up people's behinds just to get elected.

The guy is a timeshare baron. If you've ever attended a timeshare sales pitch you would know that they are of the most despicable vermin in sales. IOW, you can't believe a word they say. Quite frankly the less timeshare sales employees in existence the better off the world will be.

And brettw is right. How do you expect to balance the budget by increased military spending and no increase in tax rates? And how do you expect to decrease unemployment by cutting the size of govt? Mitt apparently has magic underwear that can perform tricks.

Actually he's a successful self made millionare, but hey what does he know about the economy or creating jobs.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Did you guys read the whole article?

"David Siegel is the man who, together with his wife, Jackie, built the largest new house in America, known as "Versailles." His story first appeared in my book, "The High-Beta Rich." It then made it to the big screen with documentary film "The Queen of Versailles."
They became symbols of outsized spending, debt and real estate in America."

I'm wondering why anyone would want a unsuccessful person, running the country... Obama may have more money than you or I but Romney is next level success. I would rather have someone with some sort of financial sense running things. Not the guy who wants to rob from the middle class to feed his poor sheeple. Obama is an idiot it's pretty hard not to see that.

my point was, that there are more than likely others that feel the same way. I know that, for my business, if taxes take a significant hit to the bottom line, I will more than likely work more, instead of hiring or keeping an employee to replace me on the production side of things.

"David Siegel is the man who, together with his wife, Jackie, built the largest new house in America, known as "Versailles." His story first appeared in my book, "The High-Beta Rich." It then made it to the big screen with documentary film "The Queen of Versailles."
They became symbols of outsized spending, debt and real estate in America."

Yeah... great guy. A shining example. Sheesh.

I don't have a clue what article your talking about I was responding to the post above me. But I will say if someone earns enough money to build a mansion good for them. Also the materials used, labor to build, and maintenance to upkeep that mansion all sounds like jobs to me.

I use this thing called the Internet, then I use this thing called Dogpile, then I type in Kingstons are Mormons and there I find hours of reading, you can too.

Your suggestion that Romney is of the same church as the Kingston's is lame at best. You have no knowledge of what your talking about and it shows. The Romneys religion (LDS) and Kingston's religion are two totally different religions with different beliefs and values and structure. The Kingston's have no ties to the LDS. What your trying to do is tie Romney to one of Utahs most known problematic polygamist clans known for underage girls being forced to marry cousins, uncles, and beating their runaways and cheating welfare. The polygamist clans (Kingston's, Swapps, Lebarrons, Allred's, and lastly Warren Jeffs clan) do not belong to Romneys LDS faith. Theres no tie or any connection. Your right there's hours of reading about the vast differences of them, too bad you just didn't read any of it before making an uneducated statement smelling like dog shiz.
Perhaps you could start reading up on Romneys religion here and learn http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

I think he's asking you to make a connection. Like if I was to Say Barrak Hussein Obama that's a,Muslim name the same as Sadam Hussein who was a radical Muslim dictator. I found that out on a thing called the internet.
Ridiculous isn't it?

The Church gave up the practice back in 1890. They may have a common beginning, but since then (1890's) they have all gone their separate ways and have different views and practices and beliefs. The LDS religion does not associate with any of the polygamist clans. It is illegal to practice it, and the state will vigorously go after the offenders practicing underage marriages like the Kingstons (and has) Point is, Romney has no religeous affiliations with the Kingston's nor would it be in his interest. Bftskir is just grasping trying to pin Romney to something when there's nothing.

Now, how's the next debate going to go down? Is Obama going to be more verbal? What's everyone's guess as to how they will moderate?